NIKHIL SHAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.3.1993 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal No. 8(4)/1992: affirming the judgment and order dated 30.10.92 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar in Case No. 839C/1991. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the conviction recorded against the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) 1954 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one month passed by the learned trial Court has been upheld in appeal.

(2.) The dispute in the present proceeding before the revisional Court lies within a very short compass. The only point at issue is whether the sample of 'besan' collected from the revision petitioner pursuant to the provisions of the Act is adulterated within the meaning of Section 2(ia) of the Act. The revision petitioner in reiteration of the stand taken in the Courts below urges that no conviction under Section 7/16 of the Act can be maintained on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst on the basis of which the prosecution seeks to sustain the conviction recorded by the Courts below has been exhibited in the course of the trial as Ext. 10. In the aforesaid report, the Public Analyst has opined that the sample of 'besan' is adulterated. The said report also goes to disclose that the public analyst, upon analysis has found added powered pea to the extent of 50% (approx).

(3.) Mr N .M. Lahiri, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr N. Choudhury appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner has argued that 'adulterated' as defined in Section 2(ia) of the Act embraces as many as 13 different situations or meanings. Neither in the report of the public analyst nor in the offence report filed before the learned trial Court, there is any mention or even indication as to how and in what manner the food item in question is alleged to be adulterated or which particular definition contained in Section 2(ia) of the Act is attracted. When the statute contemplates as many as 13 different situations where a food item can be said to be adulterated, initiation of a prosecution without any indication or references to which particular clause of Section 2(ia) of the Act is attracted to the facts of the case and as to in what manner and for what reason the food item is alleged to be adulterated, would have the potential to causing enormous prej udice to the accused in the conduct of his defence. The 'adulterated' being a defined expression, it was incumbent on the procession to allege adulteration by a pin pointed reference to the manner and the reasons for which the prosecution contends the food item to be adulterated. On this short ground itself, the revision petition is capable of being allowed.